Construction financing, failure, and setbacks

  • Erstellt am 2021-09-16 16:51:41

Musketier

2021-09-22 11:28:15
  • #1

Definitely not, because then the man would have to apply a much higher tax rate on his income, since the marginal tax rate is significantly higher. Additionally, her basic tax allowance would then be "wasted."

3/5 or 4/4 is the question of whether you prefer to have more regularly and risk a back payment, or whether you regularly overpay in advance and receive a refund. If you assumed 1 year of illness now, you could have more with 3/5 now and have the back payment during times when work is resumed. If the illness lasts longer and there is perhaps reintegration or something similar, then such a back payment is, of course, inconvenient. However, if you set aside 2-3 thousand euros precautionarily for a back payment, in my view, you can also opt for 3/5.

Savings potential exists, for example, with car insurance if you no longer drive so many kilometers to work.
 

haydee

2021-09-22 12:10:39
  • #2
Not necessarily. Without the progression clause, joint assessment is more favorable because the marginal tax rate is lower. However, the progression clause only affects the EF in separate assessment. It may be that with separate assessment, the overall tax burden is lower. The basic tax-free allowance for EF is not wasted, since she worked regularly for 9.5 months this year and, if all goes well, she will be able to work again next year.

It must be tried out and can be done in 5 minutes with Elster.
 

Winniefred

2021-09-22 12:25:58
  • #3
Now the thread title has been changed and also contains a spelling mistake....
 

Musketier

2021-09-22 12:28:45
  • #4

You have a misconception, but it becomes quite clear with this:
 

haydee

2021-09-22 13:17:41
  • #5
Explain it to me please?


It wasn't me.

Take a look at your loan agreement. Maybe you can adjust the repayment for the next few months. I don't remember the exact wording, but ours contains a clause that allows us to reduce payments under certain conditions, such as extended sick pay.

Presumably, not only income will be lost, but other expenses will also arise. Co-payments, window cleaner, babysitter, etc.
 

11ant

2021-09-22 13:45:49
  • #6


Typically, an employer avoids collective bargaining obligation by not being a member of an employers' association - that’s probably what you mean with the comment that yours is not collectively bound. However, collective bargaining obligation may have crept back in through a back door: public contracts often include a commitment by the bidder/contractor to comply with certain collective agreements; wage subsidies from municipalities for denominational kindergartens or private schools are often linked to the requirement to treat the affected employees according to a specific collective agreement. On verbal inquiry, one is often lied to blatantly; the welfare sector is a swamp of the shameless. The legal secretary of the union can help you here. Simply put: if your employer - possibly in another department - also employs the formerly long-term unemployed school center janitor, you might be covered by the collective agreement even if the employer brazenly denies it ;-) [that’s why the welfare mafias like to have each department in a separate non-profit GmbH as its own "fire section" so that such collective bargaining obligations do not radiate into the overall workforce, and why the churches like to cling so much to their sisterhoods]

I think.

Or capillary forces.
 
Oben